FPF Reference

    A.2.9:11 — SoTA-Echoing (informative; current alignment with one historical anchor)

    Preface node heading:a-2-9-11-sota-echoing-informative-current-alignment-with-one-historical-anchor:7708

    What this page is

    This is generated FPF reference text from the specification preface or supporting sections. It helps interpret FPF; it is not FPF Reference product documentation.

    Methodology

    Use it to understand how the specification wants to be read, then return to a route, pattern, or work packet for active work. Cite generated IDs only when the wording changes the task decision.

    Content

    Informative. Alignment notes; not normative requirements.

    • Adopt — ISO 24617‑2:2020 / multi-dimensional communicative functions. Modern dialogue‑act standards treat communicative behavior as potentially multi‑functional. A.2.9 mirrors this with an actTypes set on one communicative Work and permits shared carriers across several acts only when their world-side histories establish distinct occurrences.
    • Adapt — commitment-based semantics for communication (multi-agent/protocol practice, 2015+). A pragmatic way to avoid mental-state modeling is to track communication by its social/institutional effects, especially on commitments, permissions, and protocol states. A.2.9 reflects this via separate institutes.commitments and institutes.permissions links to U.Commitment and GrantedPermissionRelation@Context without modeling sincerity or intention.
    • Adopt (warning) — illocutionary pluralism in multiparty discourse (2015+). One utterance commonly performs multiple recognizable functions. A.2.9 avoids the “single force” trap by allowing several recognized functions on one act, while several acts sharing an utterance or carrier still require distinct occurrence grounds.
    • Adopt, adapt, reject — purpose-relative grounding evidence and structured interaction. Adopt Clark and Brennan's (1991) purpose-relative grounding principle as a historical anchor: evidence of understanding must be sufficient for the current purpose. Current studies of grounding gaps in human–LLM dialogue (Shaikh et al., 2024, 2025) reinforce the risk of presumed shared understanding, while one structured-interface study (Do et al., 2024) shows that interaction structure can help in its tested setting. Adapt that line in §5.1 by naming the receiving use and evidence first, then changing only the wording, representation, prerequisite, medium, or interaction that blocks it. Reject any inference that a reply, silence, or favourable outcome fixes meaning, proves achievement, or establishes causal contribution. Reopen this guidance when new evidence changes what supports the named use, when participants or medium change materially, or when a relied-on source no longer transfers; recheck only the affected source claim, evidence threshold, medium, or interaction choice.

    Last Updated: 2026-09-03 — upstream FPF commit b999972c (github.com/ailev/FPF)